ArticleThe American journal of cardiology2016
Comparison of the Effectiveness of Stress Echocardiography Versus Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Low-Risk Chest Pain.
Article in The American journal of cardiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare clinically relevant cardiovascular outcomes and downstream resource utilization associated with stress echocardiography (SE) and myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) in emergency department patients with low-risk chest pain. This was a retrospective analysis of health insurance claims data for a national sample of privately insured patients over the period January 1 to December 31, 2011. Subjects were selected who presented to the emergency department with a primary or secondary diagnosis of chest pain and underwent either SE or MPI. The primary end points were the percentage of patients in each group who underwent downstream cardiac catheterization, revascularization, repeat noninvasive testing, return emergency department visit with chest pain, and hospitalization for myocardial infarction. The mean length of follow-up was 190 days in both groups. Overall, 48,202 patients or 24,101 propensity-matched pairs were included in the final analysis. Compared with SE, MPI was associated with significantly higher odds of subsequent cardiac catheterization (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.99 to 2.33) and revascularization procedures (AOR 1.58; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.85) and repeat emergency department visits (AOR 1.14; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.19). The odds of repeat testing and myocardial infarction did not differ between groups. The average cost of downstream care was significantly higher in the MPI group ($2,193.80 vs $1,631.10, p <0.0001). According to the a priori rules specified for this comparative analysis, SE is more effective than MPI for privately insured patients who present to the emergency department with chest pain. In conclusion, these findings demonstrate the importance of assessing diagnostic tests based on how they affect hard end points because identification of disease, in and of itself, may not confer any clinical advantage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.